That would be way cool. I remember in college (and damn, this makes me feel old) skipping chances to go out so I could watch Glavine, Smoltz, Avery and Pete Smith pitch for the Braves in games that were on TBS.

As for my HOF vote, Maddux, Griffey and The Big Hurt.

LITTLE NELL

11-25-2008, 12:53 PM

Jr.
Maddux
Big Hurt

sox1970

11-25-2008, 12:56 PM

Griffey and Maddux have to be everyone's top 2. Your third is your choice.

I'll take Thomas.

NLaloosh

11-25-2008, 01:09 PM

They'll all be in the HOF - except Bonds.

SoxSpeed22

11-25-2008, 01:14 PM

Where's the love for the all-time saves leader?
I'll go with Hoffman and Jr. for the first two.
This is a really tough call between Maddux and Johnson as both were dominant in their era. I'll give the edge to Maddux because of his longevity and consistency.

If they're all retiring; that is going to be one heck of a Hall of Fame class.

PKalltheway

11-26-2008, 09:49 AM

Ken Griffey, Jr.
Greg Maddux
Randy Johnson

asindc

11-26-2008, 09:52 AM

This is mine as well. Fourth would be Frank.

This is how I see it as well. From a purely Sox fan POV, however, I would put in Frank over Maddox. I really don't understand how someone would vote Randy Johnson in over Pedro.

FedEx227

11-26-2008, 12:29 PM

Why is Frank getting slept on? Is it the DH thing?

Career averages:
.301/.419/.555, 39 HR, 110 RBI

PKalltheway

11-26-2008, 12:38 PM

Why is Frank getting slept on? Is it the DH thing?

Career averages:
.301/.419/.555, 39 HR, 110 RBI
I'm not sleeping on Frank at all, I think he's a first ballot HOF, but the original poster said to pick three guys off of that list. While Thomas' career has been impressive, I just felt that the three guys I chose had careers that were even more impressive, that's all.

getonbckthr

11-26-2008, 03:29 PM

Maddux, Grif and Johnson.

doublem23

11-26-2008, 03:49 PM

Why is Frank getting slept on? Is it the DH thing?

Career averages:
.301/.419/.555, 39 HR, 110 RBI

That's going to be the biggest hurdle for him. The two things he has going for him now are the induction of Paul Molitor, who would not have had a HOF-worthy career had he not been a DH for the latter part of his career IMO, and the perception that Frank was a clean slugger during the Steroid Era.

turners56

11-26-2008, 03:53 PM

Of these following players and you only have 3 votes. who would you put in the HOF

It's a pretty big toss-up between Johnson, Maddux, and Pedro. But I'll go with the Big Unit as well.

FedEx227

11-26-2008, 04:24 PM

Definitely Junior and Big Frank.

It's a pretty big toss-up between Johnson, Maddux, and Pedro. But I'll go with the Big Unit as well.

Johnson over Maddux is tough. Their career averages are shockingly similar.

Johnson: 16-9, 3.26 ERA, 1.16 WHIP, 137 ERA+

or

Maddux: 16-10, 3.16 ERA, 1.14 WHIP, 132 ERA+

JB98

11-26-2008, 05:45 PM

I'd go with Maddux, Griffey and Thomas. Martinez is also a no-brainer, so I'd make him fourth, followed by Johnson.

thomas35forever

11-26-2008, 06:08 PM

Johnson - one of the most firey pitchers of our time who has accomplished pretty much everything he can

Maddux - another very complete pitcher with the proper credentials

Griffey - the best hitter of the 90s without question and may have passed Hank Aaron if it weren't for all those injuries this decade

Thomas would be fourth on my list.

voodoochile

11-26-2008, 10:50 PM

Johnson - one of the most firey pitchers of our time who has accomplished pretty much everything he can

Maddux - another very complete pitcher with the proper credentials

Griffey - the best hitter of the 90s without question and may have passed Hank Aaron if it weren't for all those injuries this decade

Thomas would be fourth on my list.

These are the 4 no brain required votes. Since HOF voters can pencil in up to 10 people, I am refusing to accept the 3 vote maximum. Basically, I'm cheating...:tongue:

Daver

11-26-2008, 11:20 PM

Why is Frank getting slept on? Is it the DH thing?

Career averages:
.301/.419/.555, 39 HR, 110 RBI

Yes. The reality is that the baseball HOF is as it exists right now is a joke, a good percentage of the voting members refuse to acknowledge anything after the advent of free agency, which is why there are very few relief pitchers or DH's in the hall.

I wouldn't piss on the HOF if it was on fire.

WSox597

11-27-2008, 06:03 AM

Maddux, Smoltz, and Glavine should go into the HOF together.

Those would be my choices as well.

Griffey would be fourth. Thomas has a faint chance because of his DH role most of his career. He was a hell of a hitter, though.

And personality doesn't enter into it, or Ty Cobb wouldn't be there either.

Actually, the entire list you posted belongs there, well maybe not Kent.

whitesoxfan1986

11-27-2008, 08:51 AM

Those would be my choices as well.

Griffey would be fourth. Thomas has a faint chance because of his DH role most of his career. He was a hell of a hitter, though.

And personality doesn't enter into it, or Ty Cobb wouldn't be there either.

Actually, the entire list you posted belongs there, well maybe not Kent.
If Ryne Sandberg is in the HOF, then Kent deserves to be there as well. He has hit the most HR by a 2B in MLB history.

Craig Grebeck

11-27-2008, 09:39 AM

Maddux, Pedro, and Griffey.

doublem23

11-27-2008, 10:39 AM

Those would be my choices as well.

Griffey would be fourth. Thomas has a faint chance because of his DH role most of his career. He was a hell of a hitter, though.

I think your selling Frank short, he will be inducted to the HOF, and probably on the first ballot, it's just this imaginary 3-player rule the OP set out that makes him a borderline candidate considering the other extraordinary talent on this list.

PaleHoseGeorge

11-27-2008, 11:14 AM

I'm confused. Many of these players are still active and others aren't.

Are you assuming they'll all be first-ballot competitors to one another? Clearly this isn't the case.

:?:

WSox597

11-27-2008, 07:35 PM

I think your selling Frank short, he will be inducted to the HOF, and probably on the first ballot, it's just this imaginary 3-player rule the OP set out that makes him a borderline candidate considering the other extraordinary talent on this list.

Do you really think so, with the DH situation? I'm not sure of course, nobody is until it happens. But, wasn't the rap against Edgar Martinez getting in, was he mostly played as a DH after his injury?

That's what I was basing my statement on.

soxrepublican

11-27-2008, 08:23 PM

Ron Kittle, Aaron Rowand and Herbert "Milkman" Perry.

Seriously though, I think it should be Big Frank, Griff, and Martinez

twentywontowin

11-27-2008, 09:09 PM

Maddux
Griffey
Big Hurt

Pedro comes in as the runner-up pick because for several years, he was THE pitcher in all of baseball.

WhiteSox5187

11-27-2008, 11:28 PM

With all due respect to Frank, if I had to choose just three in that list it would be Glavine, Maddux and Junior. I have a hard time saying no to two three hundred game winners and as great as Thomas is, Junior was a much better all around player. I don't think it is completely far fetched to make a comparison between Junior and Willie Mays; Frank was a great hitter (maybe the best I've seen, though Pujols might wind up taking that in the long run), but Junior was the complete package.

Brian26

11-28-2008, 10:41 AM

If I had to choose, I would pick Frank, Junior and Unit to go in together.

The next year, I would pick Maddux, Glavine and Smoltz. It's questionable if Smoltz deserves it, and Glavine is iffy, but there would be something romantic about having those three Braves pitchers go into the HOF at the same time. Of course the question comes up whether Maddux wears the ATL or ChC hat, but that's another discussion altogether.

soxinem1

11-28-2008, 10:38 PM

If I had to choose, I would pick Frank, Junior and Unit to go in together.

The next year, I would pick Maddux, Glavine and Smoltz. It's questionable if Smoltz deserves it, and Glavine is iffy, but there would be something romantic about having those three Braves pitchers go into the HOF at the same time. Of course the question comes up whether Maddux wears the ATL or ChC hat, but that's another discussion altogether.

Do you mean 'iffy' as in first ballot, or 'iffy' period? I'm not sure how an excellent starter with 300 wins could be iffy.

gaelhound

11-28-2008, 11:04 PM

Hurt, Pedro, and Maddux

Billy Ashley

11-29-2008, 10:57 AM

Maddux, Pedro, and Griffey.

Agreed-

Best pitching career since world war 2- Maddux

Best 7 year stretch in pitching history- Pedro

2nd best player of the 1990s- Jr.

It's not a knock against Thomas (or anyone else for that matter). But Maddux and Pedro have to go in, they're on the short list of best pitchers ever. After that Griffey was an offensive force (not the hitter that Thomas was) an excellent defender and a very solid base stealer. he wasn't the player Bonds was, but he was about as close as one could get (with out the negatives).

What's crazy is that I'd call 4 or 5 of those guys slam dunk hall of famers in their first year, had their first year not been this one.

voodoochile

11-29-2008, 11:39 AM

Agreed-

Best pitching career since world war 2- Maddux

Best 7 year stretch in pitching history- Pedro

2nd best player of the 1990s- Jr.

It's not a knock against Thomas (or anyone else for that matter). But Maddux and Pedro have to go in, they're on the short list of best pitchers ever. After that Griffey was an offensive force (not the hitter that Thomas was) an excellent defender and a very solid base stealer. he wasn't the player Bonds was, but he was about as close as one could get (with out the negatives).

What's crazy is that I'd call 4 or 5 of those guys slam dunk hall of famers in their first year, had their first year not been this one.

It can be argued that Frank had one of the best 8 year runs in baseball history. If 7 great years is enough for Pedro (and his lack of longevity is why I didn't include him in my top 3/4) why is it not enough for Frank?

Billy Ashley

11-29-2008, 11:44 AM

It can be argued that Frank had one of the best 8 year runs in baseball history. If 7 great years is enough for Pedro (and his lack of longevity is why I didn't include him in my top 3/4) why is it not enough for Frank?

Thomas was sick, but he never dominated hitting as Pedro did for his run. I can think of a handful of players who performed similar to Thomas over stretched (even better in a few cases) but I can't think of anyone outside of the deadball era that dominated his pears like Martinez in regards to pitching.

Billy Ashley

11-29-2008, 11:49 AM

For instance, Pedro owns 3 of the 20 highest adjusted ERA's ever during that stretch. Of the other top 20, only others 5 have happened since World War 2.

Thomas on the other hand, ranks his best as the 21st best season ever according to OPS+, now some of those seasons ahead of him are tainted, but he still never dominated as well as Martinez did. Only a handful of players ever have.

PaleHoseGeorge

11-29-2008, 12:53 PM

For instance, Pedro owns 3 of the 20 highest adjusted ERA's ever during that stretch. Of the other top 20, only others 5 have happened since World War 2.

Thomas on the other hand, ranks his best as the 21st best season ever according to OPS+, now some of those seasons ahead of him are tainted, but he still never dominated as well as Martinez did. Only a handful of players ever have.

Interesting theory. There are 25 men on the roster of every major league ballclub for the past 100 years, so 21st best season in MLB history for just one self-selected stat makes 20 other players even better than Frank Thomas.

Why don't you name these 20 and tell us the multitude of reasons why you believe they're HOFers ahead of Frank Thomas.

This is going to be rich...

voodoochile

11-29-2008, 01:02 PM

Interesting theory. There are 25 men on the roster of every major league ballclub for the past 100 years, so 21st best season in MLB history for just one self-selected stat makes 20 other players even better than Frank Thomas.

Why don't you name these 20 and tell us the multitude of reasons why you believe they're HOFers ahead of Frank Thomas.

This is going to be rich...

Frank is top 20 in OPS, OBP, Career adjusted OPS+ (what the heck if we're going to take some silly stats, why not this one?), HR and he's 24th in slg with a few known cheats in front of him on the list. He's 18th on the all-time HR list with at least 4 known cheaters in front of him including king turd himself, Barry Bonds.

His 1994 season though cut short was one for the ages. Only 13 non-steroid users have ever had better ones - though several of them had several such seasons.

Billy Ashley

11-29-2008, 06:35 PM

Interesting theory. There are 25 men on the roster of every major league ballclub for the past 100 years, so 21st best season in MLB history for just one self-selected stat makes 20 other players even better than Frank Thomas.

Why don't you name these 20 and tell us the multitude of reasons why you believe they're HOFers ahead of Frank Thomas.

This is going to be rich...

Rich?

I love your argument here. “I’m going to ignore Thomas’ rankings in relation to Martinez, because it’s just a selected piece of evidence chosen to prove the point by the guy I don’t like.”

For goodness sake, have you ever written a college level paper? Anytime anyone makes an argument based on evidence they make it a habit of selecting evidence that supports their case. It wouldn’t have done Alexander Hamilton much good to write about the vague definition for the courts in article 3 of the constitution while he was penning the Federalist papers with Madison would it?

My point is simple- Pedro Martinez, despite having a short (in comparison to other pitching greats) career is one of the 5 best starters of all time. His peak, was far better than anything ever seen by another pitcher in the history of baseball (Outside of maybe Joe Wood’s couple of seasons prior to WW1 or some other dead ball era pitcher). Frank Thomas on the other hand is not one of the ten best hitters of all time. He’s damn good, and belongs in the Hall of Fame (and would be a first ballot candidate almost every year, just maybe not this one) but he’s likely “only” in the top 20-25. Additionally, he was a lousy fielder and a bad base runner. These things don’t detract from his greatness; they only make him more Jimmy Foxx than Willie Mays.

I used OPS+ and ERA+ because both adjust for era, park factors and so on. If you want to use some other measure to ascertain the level of greatness of both men, go for it. I only used OPS+ and ERA+ because it’s a quick down and dirty way to evaluate value.

Here is Pedro’s peak in terms of ERA+:

1997: 219 18th best in history (Tied)
1998: 168 225 best in history
1999: 243 9th best in history
2000: 291 2nd best in history, best since 1880
2001: 189 (He was hurt and didn’t pitch much that year)
2002: 202 32 best in history
2003: 210 27th best in history
2004: 125
2005: 145

His career mark is btw, the best of any starting pitcher in history, further cementing the fact that Pedro was inhuman, he was the closest thing to God on the diamond that we’ve seen in our lifetimes. A bad shoulder robbed him from a super long career and crummy offenses and bullpens also hurt his career win totals, but he’s the best pitcher any of us have ever had a chance to watch with the exception of maybe Maddux or Clemens (but Clemens never had those kind of seasons until his “later” years)

So Thomas dominated as much as Pedro during Pedro’s God on Earth phase? That’s rich.

I hope Thomas plays another season because he absolutely deserves to go in on the first ballot, but this class is just unreal.

jabrch

11-29-2008, 06:59 PM

Please don't feed the trolls.

Daver

11-29-2008, 07:02 PM

Rich?

I love your argument here. “I’m going to ignore Thomas’ rankings in relation to Martinez, because it’s just a selected piece of evidence chosen to prove the point by the guy I don’t like.”

For goodness sake, have you ever written a college level paper? Anytime anyone makes an argument based on evidence they make it a habit of selecting evidence that supports their case. It wouldn’t have done Alexander Hamilton much good to write about the vague definition for the courts in article 3 of the constitution while he was penning the Federalist papers with Madison would it?

My point is simple- Pedro Martinez, despite having a short (in comparison to other pitching greats) career is one of the 5 best starters of all time. His peak, was far better than anything ever seen by another pitcher in the history of baseball (Outside of maybe Joe Wood’s couple of seasons prior to WW1 or some other dead ball era pitcher). Frank Thomas on the other hand is not one of the ten best hitters of all time. He’s damn good, and belongs in the Hall of Fame (and would be a first ballot candidate almost every year, just maybe not this one) but he’s likely “only” in the top 20-25. Additionally, he was a lousy fielder and a bad base runner. These things don’t detract from his greatness; they only make him more Jimmy Foxx than Willie Mays.

I used OPS+ and ERA+ because both adjust for era, park factors and so on. If you want to use some other measure to ascertain the level of greatness of both men, go for it. I only used OPS+ and ERA+ because it’s a quick down and dirty way to evaluate value.

Here is Pedro’s peak in terms of ERA+:

1997: 219 18th best in history (Tied)
1998: 168 225 best in history
1999: 243 9th best in history
2000: 291 2nd best in history, best since 1880
2001: 189 (He was hurt and didn’t pitch much that year)
2002: 202 32 best in history
2003: 210 27th best in history
2004: 125
2005: 145

His career mark is btw, the best of any starting pitcher in history, further cementing the fact that Pedro was inhuman, he was the closest thing to God on the diamond that we’ve seen in our lifetimes. A bad shoulder robbed him from a super long career and crummy offenses and bullpens also hurt his career win totals, but he’s the best pitcher any of us have ever had a chance to watch with the exception of maybe Maddux or Clemens (but Clemens never had those kind of seasons until his “later” years)

So Thomas dominated as much as Pedro during Pedro’s God on Earth phase? That’s rich.

I hope Thomas plays another season because he absolutely deserves to go in on the first ballot, but this class is just unreal.

I think the propellerhead is slightly miffed.

Billy Ashley

11-29-2008, 07:27 PM

Please don't feed the trolls.

It appears using logic is trolling to you-

I ask, what is so objectionable to me arguing that Frank Thomas is merely great as opposed to the greatest?

My biggest problem with this site, people like you continue to suggest that anything beyond "Rah Rah, let's go team" is trolling. Furthermore the fear of looking at anything that comes remotely close to outside your comfort zone evokes the same stupid response.

People around here seem to take pride in their own stupidity. It's amazing.

PaleHoseGeorge

11-29-2008, 07:27 PM

Rich?

I love your argument here. “I’m going to ignore Thomas’ rankings in relation to Martinez, because it’s just a selected piece of evidence chosen to prove the point by the guy I don’t like.”

For goodness sake, have you ever written a college level paper? Anytime anyone makes an argument based on evidence they make it a habit of selecting evidence that supports their case. It wouldn’t have done Alexander Hamilton much good to write about the vague definition for the courts in article 3 of the constitution while he was penning the Federalist papers with Madison would it?

My point is simple- Pedro Martinez, despite having a short (in comparison to other pitching greats) career is one of the 5 best starters of all time. His peak, was far better than anything ever seen by another pitcher in the history of baseball (Outside of maybe Joe Wood’s couple of seasons prior to WW1 or some other dead ball era pitcher). Frank Thomas on the other hand is not one of the ten best hitters of all time. He’s damn good, and belongs in the Hall of Fame (and would be a first ballot candidate almost every year, just maybe not this one) but he’s likely “only” in the top 20-25. Additionally, he was a lousy fielder and a bad base runner. These things don’t detract from his greatness; they only make him more Jimmy Foxx than Willie Mays.

I used OPS+ and ERA+ because both adjust for era, park factors and so on. If you want to use some other measure to ascertain the level of greatness of both men, go for it. I only used OPS+ and ERA+ because it’s a quick down and dirty way to evaluate value.

Here is Pedro’s peak in terms of ERA+:

1997: 219 18th best in history (Tied)
1998: 168 225 best in history
1999: 243 9th best in history
2000: 291 2nd best in history, best since 1880
2001: 189 (He was hurt and didn’t pitch much that year)
2002: 202 32 best in history
2003: 210 27th best in history
2004: 125
2005: 145

His career mark is btw, the best of any starting pitcher in history, further cementing the fact that Pedro was inhuman, he was the closest thing to God on the diamond that we’ve seen in our lifetimes. A bad shoulder robbed him from a super long career and crummy offenses and bullpens also hurt his career win totals, but he’s the best pitcher any of us have ever had a chance to watch with the exception of maybe Maddux or Clemens (but Clemens never had those kind of seasons until his “later” years)

Frank Thomas isn't being compared to a pitcher of any sort; Thomas is being compared to other hitters of comparable value. Only a fool would attempt to compare ERA's to SLG's and my mother didn't raise one of those.

If you want to compare Frank Thomas to Babe Ruth or Lou Gehrig or Ted Williams or Jimmie Foxx, I'm all ears to hear it. If you insist on comparing him to Pedro Martinez, I'll just keep laughing my ass off.
:gulp:

Frank Thomas isn't being compared to a pitcher of any sort; Thomas is being compared to other hitters of comparable value. Only a fool would attempt to compare ERA's to SLG's and my mother didn't raise one of those.

If you want to compare Frank Thomas to Babe Ruth or Lou Gehrig or Ted Williams or Jimmie Foxx, I'm all ears to hear it. If you insist on comparing him to Pedro Martinez, I'll just keep laughing my ass off.
:gulp:

No but you're arguing that Thomas dominated in a manner similar to that of Martinez, the evidence is clearly contrary.

I mean hell, according to your logic- we can't tell who has more value between Albert Pujols and Brain Bannister

PaleHoseGeorge

11-29-2008, 07:34 PM

No but you're arguing that Thomas dominated in a manner similar to that of Martinez, the evidence is clearly contrary.

I would love for you to point out where I ever wrote anything like that. You can't because I didn't.

I mean hell, according to your logic- we can tell who has more value between Albert Pujols and Brain Bannister

:?:

I stated precisely the opposite.

Daver

11-29-2008, 07:39 PM

No but you're arguing that Thomas dominated in a manner similar to that of Martinez, the evidence is clearly contrary.

Where did he say that?

Making things up to try and support your feeble argument is really poor form.

Billy Ashley

11-29-2008, 07:39 PM

I would love for you to point out where I ever wrote anything like that. You can't because I didn't.

:?:

I stated precisely the opposite.

First point, I had you confused with Chile who made the first comment about Thomas' stretch of dominance.

The Banister point was a typo but the fact that you don't think we can figure out which of the two has greater value is absolutely insane. If you really can't see that Albert Pujols is better than Brian Bannister, you should be a little more careful about who you belittle.

Billy Ashley

11-29-2008, 07:41 PM

Where did he say that?

Making things up to try and support your feeble argument is really poor form.

Like I said, got mixed up. It gets hard to keep up with all the dumb asses on this board.

PaleHoseGeorge

11-29-2008, 07:54 PM

Like I said, got mixed up. It gets hard to keep up with all the dumb asses on this board.

It's hard to keep up when you're the one leading the parade.

:wink:

Daver

11-29-2008, 07:58 PM

Like I said, got mixed up. It gets hard to keep up with all the dumb asses on this board.

Look in the mirror and you will see one of the larger ones.

Billy Ashley

11-29-2008, 08:14 PM

Look in the mirror and you will see one of the larger ones.

Nice try but the other guy was funnier. Really though, I'm trying to understand your point of view. Using even the most basic statistics to support my argument makes me a fool? Or is it disagreeing with you?

You're the worst kind of snob, one with nothing backing their feeling of superiority. Have at it man, I'm sure life's plenty fun that way.

I can think of better things to do than chatting with the likes of you, maybe I'll pick up origami or a meth habit.

-And yes, I find origami to be just as objectionable as an addiction to meth-amphetamines but a lot more palatable than exchanging ideas (or the lack thereof) with you. Toodles.

Brian26

11-29-2008, 08:18 PM

Just taking one random stat to look at: On-base percentage.

Frank has the best single-season (1994) on-base percentage of any player since 1957 (in the last 51 years) not named Bonds.

For slugging percentage, Frank has the 2nd best single-season slugging % since 1957 for any player not named Bonds, Sosa or McGwire. Jeff Bagwell's 1994 slg % beat Frank's by 0.0207 %

PaleHoseGeorge

11-29-2008, 08:20 PM

Nice try but the other guy was funnier. Really though, I'm trying to understand your point of view. Using even the most basic statistics to support my argument makes me a fool? Or is it disagreeing with you?

You're the worst kind of snob, one with nothing backing their feeling of superiority. Have at it man, I'm sure life's plenty fun that way.

I can think of better things to do than chatting with the likes of you, maybe I'll pick up origami or a meth habit.

-And yes, I find origami to be just as objectionable as an addiction to meth-amphetamines but a lot more palatable than exchanging ideas (or the lack thereof) with you. Toodles.

Come on, Billy. Life is too short not to be friends!

Maybe I was wrong to suggest an ERA and an SLG were two totally different statistics. I'm sure Pedro Martinez is the next Ted Williams... you only need to finish your argument upon the foundation you've already built. It's easy!

Don't go!!!

:redneck

Daver

11-29-2008, 08:25 PM

-And yes, I find origami to be just as objectionable as an addiction to meth-amphetamines but a lot more palatable than exchanging ideas (or the lack thereof) with you. Toodles.

You're leaving?

What the hell am I supposed to do for propellerhead hilarity now?

voodoochile

11-29-2008, 08:50 PM

It appears using logic is trolling to you-

I ask, what is so objectionable to me arguing that Frank Thomas is merely great as opposed to the greatest?

My biggest problem with this site, people like you continue to suggest that anything beyond "Rah Rah, let's go team" is trolling. Furthermore the fear of looking at anything that comes remotely close to outside your comfort zone evokes the same stupid response.

People around here seem to take pride in their own stupidity. It's amazing.

For me career stats mean more than individual season stats. Frank has the numbers. Pedro's 214 wins are decidedly unexciting. Yes, his ERA, WHIP, Win% and K's are all excellent, but there's a lack of depth which is why I personally put Johnson and Maddux in the HOF before Pedro.

This is the same argument that for me keeps Albert Belle out of the HOF (along with the strong suspicion of steroid use).

In terms of HR, R, RBI and BB his numbers are deep enough for HOF credentials. His hits just short of 2500 are in the area certainly. His percentages all are HOF worthy with his OBP 19th all time (including Bonds) and OPS+ adjusted 19th all time (including Bonds and McGwire) sticking out like a big sore thumb screaming, "quit looking at the individual trees, Billy - I planted you a whole forrest over here..."

Oblong

11-29-2008, 09:15 PM

On the subject of Maddux, Pedro, Randy JOhnson, Clemens, etc., on another MB the subject came up that when you run certain numbers you end up with a disproportionate number of the the all time greatest pitchers that played in this era when you compare the dominance of these guys against the their pitching peers. This group of guys were so much better than other pitchers in the league.

I have one possible possible theory with no data to back it up, it's just an idea I came up with.

It's based on the old saying is "Good pitching always beats good hitting". No doubt the last 15-20 years saw many (most?) hitters juicing. They got bigger and stronger. So what happens is the average pitcher, even the average good pitcher, got knocked around a bit more than the average and average good pitcher did before the juicing era. But when you have a great pitcher, they're going to beat these juicers no matter what because they're stuff is that good. So they look that much better when you compare them to just the regular pitchers.

Daver

11-29-2008, 09:25 PM

On the subject of Maddux, Pedro, Randy JOhnson, Clemens, etc., on another MB the subject came up that when you run certain numbers you end up with a disproportionate number of the the all time greatest pitchers that played in this era when you compare the dominance of these guys against the their pitching peers. This group of guys were so much better than other pitchers in the league.

I have one possible possible theory with no data to back it up, it's just an idea I came up with.

It's based on the old saying is "Good pitching always beats good hitting". No doubt the last 15-20 years saw many (most?) hitters juicing. They got bigger and stronger. So what happens is the average pitcher, even the average good pitcher, got knocked around a bit more than the average and average good pitcher did before the juicing era. But when you have a great pitcher, they're going to beat these juicers no matter what because they're stuff is that good. So they look that much better when you compare them to just the regular pitchers.

Sorry, I don't buy it.

Of the minor league players caught using steroids, pitchers are the majority.

It sounds good to say, oh he pitched in the steroid era, but it is a load of crap, pitchers use steroids as much as hitters do, and pitchers benefit from it more.

WhiteSox5187

11-29-2008, 11:11 PM

Sorry, I don't buy it.

Of the minor league players caught using steroids, pitchers are the majority.

It sounds good to say, oh he pitched in the steroid era, but it is a load of crap, pitchers use steroids as much as hitters do, and pitchers benefit from it more.
Certainly there are pitchers who have used steroids and like many hitters have benefited from it and gone from being average to above average or adding years onto their careers (like Clemens)...however I think the old axiom is true that good pitching beats good hitting (so conversely great pitching would beat great hitting) so a guy like Greg Maddux who tops out at ninety can still baffle a roider like McGwire because even though steroids makes Mac a good hitter, Maddux is a good pitcher and since we know good pitching beats good hitting, Maddux wins that battle...so, to that extent I think it's true.

voodoochile

11-29-2008, 11:15 PM

It might just be a function of there being more pitchers now than there were "back in the day".

Like you said, Oblong, the best 5 are always going to be the best 5. But now the bottom 45 (roughly including relievers) wouldn't have even been in the league as recently 1992 and the curve gets really steep going back prior to 1960 when as many as 155 pitchers would have been stuck in the minors compared to the current number.

The number of teams has almost doubled since 1960 and there is more and more competition from the other sports for the best athletes.

The best 5 in 1920 might have been 5 of the best athletes in the whole country because there was no competition. Now there are lots of options for kids who excel athletically. So you might not be seeing the best pitchers compared to the best from long ago, but you are also comparing them against a much wider set and one that is not necessarily keeping up with the expansion rate.

And of course Daver is right. Who says the pitchers aren't juicing too? Almost everyone accepts at face value that Clemens was. Why would we assume he's the only one?

voodoochile

11-29-2008, 11:26 PM

Oh and one final comment about Frank's HOF credentials... Well it's probably not my final comment on the subject, but I think it pretty much seals the deal.

What's the name of the game offensively? Obviously the answer is runs.

Here's a list of the all time career leaders in "runs created":

http://www.baseball-reference.com/leaders/RC_career.shtml

You'll notice something interesting about this list and that is:

Every single eligible player in the top 40 and beyond (with the exception of Pete Rose) is in the HOF.

Frank comes in at #19 (with both Palmeiro and Bonds ahead of him).

Oblong

11-30-2008, 06:12 PM

It might just be a function of there being more pitchers now than there were "back in the day".

Like you said, Oblong, the best 5 are always going to be the best 5. But now the bottom 45 (roughly including relievers) wouldn't have even been in the league as recently 1992 and the curve gets really steep going back prior to 1960 when as many as 155 pitchers would have been stuck in the minors compared to the current number.

The number of teams has almost doubled since 1960 and there is more and more competition from the other sports for the best athletes.

The best 5 in 1920 might have been 5 of the best athletes in the whole country because there was no competition. Now there are lots of options for kids who excel athletically. So you might not be seeing the best pitchers compared to the best from long ago, but you are also comparing them against a much wider set and one that is not necessarily keeping up with the expansion rate.

And of course Daver is right. Who says the pitchers aren't juicing too? Almost everyone accepts at face value that Clemens was. Why would we assume he's the only one?

I initially thought about the talent pool argument with there being more teams today than before but I strongly believe that this is more than balanced out by an increase in available players. We're not dealing with the same source of players as we did in the past. Integration obviously, but beyond that how long did it take until they started to think black guys could pitch on a regular basis? I grew up in the 80's and it was still kind of rare to see a black pitcher back then, it was almost like the black guy had to be that much better than a white guy. Then you bring in Latin America and now Asia. I think the talent pool today is much greater to offset the increase in teams from 16-30.

soxrepublican

11-30-2008, 07:28 PM

Oh and one final comment about Frank's HOF credentials... Well it's probably not my final comment on the subject, but I think it pretty much seals the deal.

What's the name of the game offensively? Obviously the answer is runs.

Here's a list of the all time career leaders in "runs created":

http://www.baseball-reference.com/leaders/RC_career.shtml

You'll notice something interesting about this list and that is:

Every single eligible player in the top 40 and beyond (with the exception of Pete Rose) is in the HOF.

Frank comes in at #19 (with both Palmeiro and Bonds ahead of him).

Frank Thomas=Greatest DH Ever. Proven Fact! Accually, if Jerry Manuel wouldnt of played him on first for half the games in 99, 00, 01, he would of been healther and lasted longer!